Morris Adler & Co. v. J.E. Jones & Co.
Decision Date | 30 November 1922 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 671. |
Citation | 94 So. 816,208 Ala. 481 |
Parties | MORRIS ADLER & CO. v. J. E. JONES & CO. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J. Q. Smith, Judge.
Action by Morris Adler & Co. against J. E. Jones & Co., for breach of a contract. From adverse rulings on pleading, plaintiff suffered nonsuit, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Percy Benners & Burr, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Black & Harris, of Birmingham, for appellee.
May 25 1920, plaintiff (appellant) entered into a contract with defendant whereby plaintiff undertook to sell, and defendant to buy, 500 bags of sugar to be shipped from Java in August or September following. The sugar arrived in America in December, 1920, and was tendered in performance of the contract; but defendant refused to accept or pay for the sugar, whereupon this action was brought to recover damages as for a breach of contract. Defendant filed special pleas 3 to 18. Pleas 11, 17, and 18 afterwards were withdrawn. Demurrer to plea 15 was sustained and overruled as to each of the other pleas. Plaintiff then suffered a nonsuit with a bill of exceptions reserving the ruling in favor of the several pleas for review in this court.
A majority of the special pleas proceeded upon the theory that the contract was void because made in violation of a rule of the United States Food Administration, made under authority of the act of Congress approved August 10, 1917 (40 Stat. 276; U.S. Comp. St. 1918, U.S. Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 3115 1/8e et seq.), prohibiting the sale, among other commodities, of sugar for shipment or delivery more than 60 days after the making of such contract; but now it is conceded that this regulation had been repealed before the parties entered into the contract here at issue, and that the trial court erred in overruling plaintiff's demurrers to these pleas. This leaves for consideration the rulings on pleas 3, 4, 5, 6, and 16.
The gist of pleas 3, 4, and 5 is that the contract alleged in the complaint was void and of none effect because made in violation of section 5 of the Lever Act (40 Stat. 276, supra), reading as follows:
That, U.S. Comp. St. 1918, U.S. Comp. St. 1919, § 3115 1/8g.
Section 24 of the Lever Act provided:
That U.S. Comp. St. 1918, U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1919, § 3115 1/8pp.
But by the act "to provide for the national welfare by continuing the United States Sugar Equalization Board until December 31, 1920, and for other purposes" (41 Stat. 386) it was provided:
It will be observed that the last-quoted act continued sections 5 and 10 of the Lever Act in full force and effect until December 31, 1920.
By presidential proclamation, October 8, 1917, all persons, firms, corporations, and associations engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing, or distributing sugar, among other commodities, were required to secure licenses.
The question then is whether section 5, supra, suffices to invalidate the contract alleged in this cause. The complaint shows that plaintiff engaged in the business of importing sugar-probably also the business of distributing within the meaning of the act. The pleas are that plaintiff had no license. Against this rather obvious combination of facts it is urged: (1) That plaintiff is not alleged to have committed a willful violation of the act (citing Kuenster v. Meredith [D. C.] 264 F. 243); (2) that the statute does not intend to work a forfeiture of contracts in the circumstances here shown; (3) that the requirement of a license had been abrogated prior to defendant's failure or refusal to execute the contract according to his undertaking.
1. The statute is obscure in places. It denounces any person who knowingly engages in or carries on any business for which a license is required. Kuenster v. Meredith presented a very different question. The real issue there was whether Kuenster, who had at one time violated a regulation of the Food Administration, should thereafter be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Friedkin
...... Congress. Lawrenceburg Roller Mills Co. v. Jones & Co.,. 204 Ala. 59, 85 So. 719; Adler & Co. v. Jones & Co.,. 208 Ala. ......
-
Lovett v. State
......Lum West et al. v. State, supra; 20 Am.Jur., Sec. 44, p. 67; Morris Adler. & Co. v. J. E. Jones & Co., 208 Ala. 481, 94 So. 816;. ......
-
American Life Ins. Co. of Alabama v. Aladdin Temple Ben. Ass'n, D.O.K.K.
......See, National Bank v. Petrie, supra; Morris Adler & Co., v. J. E. Jones &. Co., 208 Ala. 481, 94 So. 816. . . ......
-
Wood v. Traders' Securities Co.
......254; Johnson v. Hanover. Bank, 88 Ala. 271, 6 So. 909; Morris Adler v. Jones, 208 Ala. 481, 94 So. 816; Oxford Iron Co. v. Quinchett, ......